Property:Contents
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
F
Barbados’s Constitution of 1966 was the first document to protect freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. The preamble states the country was "founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God" among other principles. Article 19 grants religious freedoms and protections: "Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience and for the purpose of this section the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
References:
https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Barbados/barbados66.html +
Freedom of association underpins collective action, social movements, and personal development. However, it is not universally protected and is often only implied in many countries. The field of psychology can assist in uncovering the roots of why people associate and if it is a productive freedom in societies. Behaviorism contributes to society’s understanding of freedom of association through its emphasis on the roles of reinforcement, punishment, and environmental influences in shaping human decision-making.
Behaviorism emerged within the field of psychology in the early 20th century. Its key distinguisher is that it emphasizes the study of observable behavior over internal mental states (Malone 1975, 141). The “father of behaviorism,” John B. Watson, launched the “Behavioral Revolution” following his 1913 article and lecture “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It” (Moore 2017, 12). This new phenomenon continued to spread through key figures and their theories: B.F. Skinner and his operant conditioning, William James and his ideo-motor action theory, and George Herbert Mead and his analysis of reflective intelligence (Baldwin 1988; Malone 1975).
Freedom of association can be understood through a behaviorist lens through its attention to why people join groups. This psychological field argues that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning, and therefore the reactions people receive based on their group status influence their trajectory in such groups. If individuals receive positive reinforcement for joining a group – such as social approval, increased resources, a sense of belonging – then they are more likely to continue participating in that group (Skinner 2002, 44). However, if an individual receives negative reinforcement for their association with a group – such as social ostracism, punishment, legal penalties – then they will be more likely to disassociate with that group (Skinner 2002). A positive experience with group association will reinforce someone’s behavior of seeking out and maintaining associations, but the threat of negative consequences acts as a deterrent to behavior that would tend toward group participation. Watson and other behaviorists believed that understanding the science of behavior would benefit human welfare, as these concepts would be grounded in science and naturalistic principles, rather than mental and social assumptions (Moore 2017, 1).
A key tenet of behaviorism is the notion that the environment one is surrounded by greatly influences behavior (Baldwin 1988). Mead emulates this idea in his reflective intelligence theory. If one has several response options available, the person will use significant symbols and established norms to choose an action (Baldwin 1988, 117). Correspondingly, Skinner argued that his operant behavior theory “is directed toward the future: a person acts in order that something will happen, and the order is temporal” (Baldwin 1988, 121).
At the individual level, people are influenced by social norms and peers. They are inclined to join groups that are socially acceptable and supported by their peers, thus receiving positive reinforcement from their ability to conform to group norms and activities (Skinner 2002). Moreover, people utilize reference groups in order to determine their attitudes toward ideas (Stafford 1966, 69). They influence both aspiration levels and kinds of behaviors, establishing approved perspectives and actions.
Politically, the way a government protects or does not protect the freedom of association affects how individuals will behave. If this right is protected legally, group formation is positively reinforced; if this right is infringed upon such as in authoritarian regimes, people fear group association and act according to the negative reinforcer (Baum 2016; Skinner 2002). Likewise, individualistic communities place more value on personal autonomy than collectivist communities that emphasize group participation.
Thus, Skinner argues that societies should be constructed – through scientific study – around ways to emphasize positive reinforcement and abandon negative reinforcers, as these only hinder collective action. He views political liberty as the absence of aversive conditions – like detrimental control and negative reinforcers (Machan 1975, 3). People should be free to associate because behavior modification through the implementation of correct reinforcers will build a more harmonious society. Author Carson Bennett states, “By adopting the radical behavioral viewpoint of B.F. Skinner, we would truly become the masters of our fate and captains of our environment” (Bennet 1990, 18).
References
Baldwin, John D. “MEAD AND SKINNER: AGENCY AND DETERMINISM.” Behaviorism 16, no. 2 (1988): 109–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41236063.
Baum, William M. “Freedom” in Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119143673.ch9.
Bennet, Carson M. “A Skinnerian View of Human Freedom.” The Humanist 50, no. 4 (1990): 18. https://www.proquest.com/openview/6e7dbdc248e3d859911b8ae9221f818a/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35529.
Machan, Tibor. “Skinner vs. Freedom, Dignity, and Liberty.” Reason (1975). https://reason.com/1975/01/01/skinner-vs-freedom-dignity-and/.
Malone, John C. “William James and B. F. Skinner: Behaviorism, Reinforcement, and Interest.” Behaviorism 3, no. 2 (1975): 140–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27758839.
Moore, J. “John B. Watson’s Classical S–R Behaviorism.” The Journal of Mind and Behavior 38, no. 1 (2017): 1–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44631526.
Skinner, B.F. Beyond Freedom & Dignity. Hackett Publishing. 2002.
Skinner, B.F. “The Operational Analysis of Psychological Terms.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7 (1984): 547-581. https://userpages.umbc.edu/~catania/ABACNJ/Pages%20from%20BBS%20BFS%204%20terms.pdf.
Stafford, James E. “Effects of Group Influences on Consumer Brand Preferences.” Journal of Marketing Research 3, no. 1 (1966): 68–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149437.
The Belarus Constitution of 1994 contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s post-Soviet history. Articles 14, 16, and 31 grant religious freedom and protections. Article 5 bans activities of political parties and public associations with the aim of religious hatred.
References:
1994 Constitution of the Republic of Belarus: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzby0006&id=4&men_tab=srchresults
1994 Constitution of the Republic of Belarus as amended in 1996: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL(2003)065-e +
Articles 20 and 21 of the 27 October 1830 Draft Constitution of Belgium described protection of freedom of religion. Article 20 protected freedom of opinion, and Article 21 stated that "The public exercise of a belief [culte] may not be impeded except by virtue of a law, and only in the case in which it troubles the public order and tranquility."
Articles 14-16 of Belgium’s 1831 Constitution codified protections of freedom of religion. However, Article 14 outlines legal limits to this freedom: “The freedom of religions, their public exercise, as well as the liberty of expressing their opinions on every matter, are guaranteed; reserving the right of repressing crimes committed in the exercise of these liberties.”
References:
English translation of the French text of the draft of the constitution of 27 October 1830 35 (2009): https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzbe0096&id=5&men_tab=srchresults
1831 Constitution of Belgium: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Belgium_1831 +
Freedom of religion was first guaranteed in Belize by its Constitution of 1981. Articles 3 and 11 protect religious freedom and equality. Preamble claims the supremacy of God.
References:
1981 Constitution of Belize: https://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Belize/belize81.html +
Article 2 of the 15 February 1959 Constitution of the Republic of Dahomey guaranteed freedom of religion, conditioned by respect for public order.
Under the 1990 Constitution of Benin, Articles 23 and 26 offer freedom of religion and prohibit religious discrimination under the law. Articles 2 and 5 define Benin as a secular state.
References:
"Of the State and of Sovereignty," Republique du Dahomey, Constitution du 15 fevrier 1959 (1959): 57-57: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzbj0032&id=3&collection=cow&index=#
1990 Constitution of the Republic of Benin:
https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Benin%20Constitution%20-%20English%20Summary.pdf +
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was an English philosopher whose work would prove foundational to the development of modern liberalism, as both a moral and a political vision. Bentham’s unique brand of liberalism is most strongly associated with his guiding principle of utilitarianism: that what is best is what brings the most utility to the greatest number of people. Despite what might today be recognized as problematic implications of an absolute adherence to this principle, Bentham’s utilitarianism made him a strong advocate of social and political freedoms, under the reasoning that these freedoms are a net good to society.
Bentham defines his utilitarian philosophy in his 1781 tract An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. By his central concept of utility, he means “that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all this in the present case comes to the same thing), or (what comes again to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered” (Bentham 1781, 14-15). Notably, he insists that utility can only accrue to the individual: “The interest of the community is one of the most general expressions that can occur in the phraseology of morals: no wonder that the meaning of it is often lost. … The community is a fictitious body, composed of the individual persons who are considered as constituting, as it were, its members. The interest of the community then is, what is it? —the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it” (Bentham 1781, 15). Therefore, a good government is one that acts in the ultimate interests of its individual constituents, and not for some vague notion of the good of the community or the state.
Presaging his protege John Stuart Mill, Bentham seeks to defend press freedom through the lens of his utilitarian ideal. Bentham identifies an unfettered press as the essential guarantor against what he terms misrule, by ensuring protection against government oppression and the accountability of leaders to the people they represent. This is perhaps best seen in his commentary on the suppression of liberal movements in Spain, and by extension in his native England as well. Referring to a report of a Madrid newspaper editor being prosecuted for his work, Bentham declares that “whatsoever evil can ever result from this liberty [of the press], is everywhere, and at all times, greatly outweighed by the good” (Bentham 1820). This is because the liberty of the press “operates as a check upon the conduct of the ruling few; and in that character constitutes a controlling power, indispensably necessary to the maintenance of good government” (Bentham 1820). To Bentham, the benefits of good government are “plainly infinite” (Bentham 1820).
Bentham does not further elaborate on these benefits in his letter on the situation in Spain, but elsewhere in his work he consistently identifies good governance with participatory democracy, with the ability of the people to impact their government, and consequently with freedom in the broadest sense. For Bentham, “in the late stages of his long career nothing was more important to ‘good politics’ than the influence of public opinion on those with political power” (Cutler 1999, 322). He even wrote of an (allegorical) Public Opinion Tribunal that would issue “judgments” of politicians, to ensure that politics takes the people’s unfiltered and all-inclusive sentiments into account: “No one can know her interests better than herself. Thus, if a utilitarian public policy is to emerge from an aggregation of those interests, the constitution should provide the institutions that permit all persons to communicate their interests to government equally” (Cutler 1999, 324). Unlike many of his contemporaries, Bentham places such high value on government by and for the people, that he insists that the government has a duty to be responsive to the people even when public opinion is misguided. He was not naïve; to him, “[self-determination] does not require certainty in [the people’s] judgments of prospective utility … The institutions of government, therefore, ought to allow the public to react to what their government is doing, constantly steering closer and closer to providing for their interests” (Cutler 1999, 324).
When it comes to the purported harms of a free press, Bentham points out that prosecutions for criticizing the government are traditionally justified as a response to an insult to the honor of the state or its functionaries, and that this is regarded as a threat to the integrity of the state (Bentham 1820). Indeed, rulers have historically tended to punish defamation of the government or its representatives more harshly than defamation of private individuals, and to treat aspersions cast on the government as a whole or on a higher ranked official as more serious than those cast on a lower ranked official. Bentham considers this nonsensical: he argues that the harms to a discrete number of high-profile individuals who may find themselves maligned are far eclipsed by the much greater benefits that a free press brings to a much wider range of people. He even notes that public figures who find themselves unfairly targeted by the press have a built-in remedy commensurate with the rank of their position, since their status affords them distinct advantages in rebutting any allegations, which a private person does not have (Bentham 1820).
Moreover, far from handicapping the function of the state by impugning its reputation, a free press actually does the opposite. For a real world illustration of his reasoning, Bentham points to the United States, where the freedom of journalists to speak against the government is not only constitutionally protected but considered inalienable from public life, but which he nevertheless considers better governed than even his own country; he even calls the young nation the only country that truly has good governance. Thus, Bentham elucidates a utilitarian account of freedom of the press: the cumulative benefit to individuals is far greater than the cumulative harm. Put another way, in an ideal government where one can feel assured that the laws are just, a good citizen’s aim should be “to obey punctually; to censure freely” (Schofield 2019, 43).
Bentham does recognize narrow circumstances where the press can be censured for defamation, but he holds that this punishment should be applied in the reverse of how it has typically been: defamation of a private person should be treated as more severe than defamation of a state official. In fact, Bentham lays out a standard of proof for defamation of a public figure that is remarkably similar to the actual malice standard laid out by the US Supreme Court more than a century later: namely, the statement in question must be not just untrue but “the result of willful mendacity, accompanied with the consciousness of its falsity, or else with culpable rashness” (Schofield 2019, 45). Presumably, he would likewise support the modern jurisprudence that mere negligence of the falsity of a statement is sufficient proof in the case of a non-public figure.
Benthamite utilitarianism, it must be said, does not necessarily anticipate all the problems with today’s mass media and its role in guiding the reins of government. For one thing, Bentham does not consider that the press does not just report public opinion but shapes it (often quite intentionally); he also does not ask how public policy should incorporate the views of experts when they conflict with the public mood, or how it should protect the right of minority views to also be heard and compete for influence. Nonetheless, Bentham’s work offers a straightforward and persuasive account of the value of a press free from state interference, giving a highly compelling defense of this fundamental human right at a time of conservative retrenchment and reaction throughout Europe.
References:
Bentham, Jeremy. 1781. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada: Batoche Books Limited, 2000.
Bentham, Jeremy. October 7, 1820. “To the Spanish People: Letter I.” Classical Utilitarianism Website, University of Texas, September 24, 2003, https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/bentham/bsp/bsp.l01.html
Cutler, Fred. “Jeremy Bentham and the Public Opinion Tribunal.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, no. 3 (1999): 321-346, https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/63/3/321/1902496?redirectedFrom=fulltext#no-access-message
Schofield, Philip. “Jeremy Bentham on Freedom of the Press, Public Opinion, and Good Government.” Scandinavica, 58, no. 2 (2019): 39-57, https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10105424/1/13223-jeremy-bentham-on-freedom-of-the-press-public-opinion-and-good-government.pdf
According to Article 7.4 of the 2008 Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan, "A Bhutanese citizen shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. No person shall be compelled to belong to another faith by means of coercion or inducement."
References:
2008 Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan: "Article 7: Fundamental Rights," Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan, 2008, 14: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzbt0002&id=22&men_tab=srchresults +
Freedom of conscience is recognized in Title II of Bolivia’s 1826 Constitution, which also states that the country’s religion is Catholicism: "The Catholic Apostolic Roman Religion is that of the Republic, to the exclusion of every other. The Government will protect it, and cause it to be respected; recognizing the principle of freedom of conscience."
Article 3 of the 1851 Constitution of the Bolivian Republic also addressed questions of conscience and exercise: "The Apostolic Roman Catholic religion is the religion of Bolivia. The law protects and guarantees its exclusive worship, and prohibits the exercise of any other; nevertheless acknowledging the principle that there is no human power over consciences."
Articles 4, 14, 21, 86, and 104 of the 2009 Constitution protect religious freedom and prohibit religious discrimination. Article 4 says that Bolivia is a secular state.
References:
1826 Constitution of Bolivia: English translation of the original Constitution of 1826 6 (2010) Title II: Of Religion. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzbo0003&i=1
1851 Political Constitution of the Bolivian Republic: English translation of the original Constitution of 1851. 1149 (2010)
The Public Rights of the Bolivians
https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzbo0007&id=1&men_tab=srchresults
“Bolivia (Plurinational Republic of) 2009.” Constitute. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Bolivia_2009 +
In the aftermath of the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Imperial Government wrote a constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina. The relationship between the two political entities was described in Section 1 of the 1910 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina: "Bosnia and the Herzegovina constitute a separate and homogeneous administrative territory, which, in conformity with the Law of the 22nd February, 1880 ... is subject to the responsible administration and control of the Imperial and Royal Joint Ministry." According to Section 8 of the 1910 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, "Liberty of conscience and faith are guaranteed. No one can be persecuted on account of his religious convictions, nor can his rights be restricted because of them. The exercise of domestic worship is secured to every person, and the exercise of public worship is assured to all recognized religious associations as far as such public worship does not run counter to public considerations. The religious sects recognized at present are the following (1.) Mohammedan. (2.) Servian Orthodox. (3.) Roman Catholic and Greek Catholic. (4.) Evangelical of Augsburg and Helvetian Confession. (5.) Jewish. The enjoyment of civic and political rights is wholly independent of religious convictions, but these latter must not interfere with the due performance of civic duties."
The Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitution of 1995 contains the first assertion of freedom of religion in the country’s independent history. Articles 1.7(b), 2.3(g), and 2.4 protect religious freedoms and equality and prohibit religious discrimination.
References:
1910 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina: British and Foreign State Papers (1912)
https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/bfsprs0105&id=549&men_tab=srchresults#
“Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995 (rev. 2009).” Constitute. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Bosnia_Herzegovina_2009
According to Article 11 of the 1966 Botswana Constitution: "(1) Except with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this section the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his or her religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his or her religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance. (2) Every religious community shall be entitled, at its own expense, to establish and maintain places of education and to manage any place of education which it wholly maintains; and no such community shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for persons of that community in the course of any education provided at any place of education which it wholly maintains or in the course of any education which it otherwise provides. (3) Except with his or her own consent (or, if he or she is a minor, the consent of his or her guardian) no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if that instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his or her own. (4) No person shall be compelled to take any oath which is contrary to his or her religion or belief or to take any oath in a manner which is contrary to his or her religion or belief. (5) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision which is reasonably required— (a) in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or (b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons, including the right to observe and practise any religion without the unsolicited intervention of members of any other religion, and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society."
References:
1966 Constitution of Botswana: https://botswanalaws.com/consolidated-statutes/constitution-of-botswana
According to Article 179.5 of the 1824 Political Constitution of the Empire of Brazil, "No one may be persecuted by reason of religion, so long as he respects that of the state and does not offend public morals."
The 1890 Constitution guaranteed free exercise: "All individuals and religious denominations may publicly and freely exercise their worship, associating themselves for this purpose, and acquiring property within the limits prescribed by the law of mortmain." In a number of ways the 1890 Constitution asserted separation of church and state, including emphasis on the secular character of public instruction and cemeteries, the civil character of marriage recognized by the state, and a ban on official subsidies or other relationships between religious groups and federal or state governments. The 22 June 1890 Constitution also barred Jesuits from Brazil, though as Thomas Skidmore describes this ban was lifted before the Constitution came into effect: "The initial draft of the Constitution of 1891, for example, contained a clause which would have again banned the order from Brazil. The provision was removed by the Constituent Assembly, which nonetheless endorsed a proposed prohibition of any new convents or monastic orders."
The final version of the 1891 Constitution offered a briefer description of freedom of religion in Article 179, Section V: "No one can be persecuted on account of his religion so long as he respects that of the state and does not offend public morals." Even so, the 1891 Constitution established an official religion in Article 5: "The Apostolic Roman Catholic religion shall continue to be the religion of the Empire. All other religions shall be permitted with their domestic or private worship in buildings destined therefor, but without any exterior form of a temple."
References:
"Title VIII: General Provisions and Guarantees of the Civil and Political Rights of Brazilian Citizens," Constitution of the Empire of Brazil, 1824 : 250: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzbr0040&id=14&men_tab=srchresults
English translation of the Portuguese original text of the Constitution of 22 June
1890 23 (2013) Section II: Declaration of Rights : https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzbr0396&id=23&collection=cow&index=
English translation of the original Constitution of 1891. [8] (2013)
Title II: Of Brazilian Citizens; Title VIII: Of the General Dispositions and Guarantees of the Civil and Political Rights of Brazilian Citizens, Constitution of the Empire of Brazil (1891): [8]; [29]: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzbr0153&id=30&men_tab=srchresults#
Skidmore, Thomas E. “Eduardo Prado: A Conservative Nationalist Critic of the Early Brazilian Republic, 1889-1901.” Luso-Brazilian Review 12, no. 2 (1975): 154. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3512939.
The Constitution of Brunei Declares the Shafi’i school of Sunni Islam (Shafeite sect) the Official religion of the country, Part IX 84.1 states that all no person shall be appointed to any office not professing the Islamic religion. However, Part II, Article 3, Section 1 states, “all other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony by the persons professing them.” This Assertion is first seen in the 1959 Constitution of Brunei Darussalam.
References:
CIA World Factbook. Brunei. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/brunei/#government
U.S. Department of State 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Brunei https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/brunei
International Commission of Jurists. Constitution of Brunei Darussalam 1959. https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Brunei-Constitution-1959-eng.pdf +
Article 37 of the 1879 Constitution of Bulgaria established "the Orthodox Eastern Confession" as the official religion. However, Article 40 of the 1879 Constitution offered broad freedom to express religious faith: "Christians of other than the Orthodox faith, and those professing any other religion whatever, whether Bulgarian-born subjects or naturalized, as well as foreigners permanently or temporarily domiciled in Bulgaria, have full liberty to profess their religion, unless the performance of their rites violates common law." In line with the last clause of Article 40, Article 41 denied the assertion of religious freedom as a reason to except oneself from general laws: "No one can, under pretext of religious scruples, exempt himself from conformity with the general laws which are binding on all in common."
Article 78 of the 1947 Constitution of the People's Republic of Bulgaria more broadly promised religious liberty: "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion, and of performing religious rites. The Church is separate from the State."
The Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria was ratified on 12 July 1991. Articles 6.2, 11.4, 13, 37, and 44.2 grant religious protections and freedoms.
References:
1879 Constitution of the Principality of Bulgaria: English translation of the Bulgarian original text of the Constitution of 1879 6 (2014) Chapter IX: Religion: https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzbg0031&id=8&men_tab=srchresults
1947 Constitution of the People's Republic of Bulgaria: "Chapter VIII: Basic Rights and Obligations of Citizens," Constitution of the People's Republic of Bulgaria : 241-244
https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/zzbg0007&id=9&collection=cow&index=
1991 Constitution of Bulgaria: https://www.parliament.bg/en/const +
Article 14 of the 1970 Constitution of Upper Volta reads: "Freedom of religious belief, profession and practise, subject to
the maintenance of public order, shall be guaranteed to all by the Constitution."
Under Chapter I, Article 7, Freedom of Religion is asserted in the 1991 Constitution of Burkina Faso. This article also specifies that respect for the law, public order, good morals, and the human person must be upheld with free practice. Equality regardless of religion is also guaranteed under Article I.
References:
1970 Constitution of Upper Volta: "Title II: Fundamental Rights and Duties of Man and the Citizen," Constitution of Upper Volta (1970): 1006-1008 https://heinonline-org.proxygw.wrlc.org/HOL/Page?collection=cow&handle=hein.cow/zzbf0015&id=3&men_tab=srchresults
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Constitution of Burkina Faso. 1991. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/bkf128139E.pdf +
Freedom of religion was asserted in the 1962 Constitution of the Kingdom of Burundi. Burundi became independent in 1962 from the Belgium administration. Article 13, under Title II, covers freedom of worship.
References:
Constitution of Burundi. 1962. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Constitution_du_Burundi_de_1962.pdf +
The 1947 Constitution of Cambodia declares Buddhism as the religion of the state. However, It asserts under Article 8 that, “Liberty of conscience is absolute. So is that of worshiping…” but limits this liberty of worship by articulating that it “suffers no other restrictions than those made necessary by the maintenance of Public order.”
Articles 31 and 43 of the 1993 Constitution grant religious equality under the law and religious freedom of worship, respectively. Article 43 of the 1993 Constitution declares Buddhism the national religion and Article 68 promotes Buddhist institutions.
References:
1947 Cambodia Constitution: Advocatetanmoy Law Library. https://advocatetanmoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/cambodia-constitution-1947.pdf
1993 Cambodia Constitution as revised up to 1999: https://pressocm.gov.kh/en/archives/9539 +
The 1972 constitution of Cameroon first asserts that Freedom of religion and worship shall be guaranteed in Article 15 of the preamble. In Article 14 the state is declared secular and neutral, also opening the preamble with adherence to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While not specifically mentioned in the 1961 Constitution, it also affirms adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which covers religious freedom under Article 18.
References:
1961 Constitution of Cameroon: https://condor.depaul.edu/mdelance/images/Pdfs/Federal%20Constitution%20of%20Cameroon.pdf
1972 Constitution of Cameroon as revised up to 2008: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cameroon_2008?lang=en +
As part of the Constitution Act of 1982, Part I B(2) and F(15) grant religious freedoms and protections. Part I of the 1982 Constitution Act asserts the supremacy of God.
References:
Constitution Act of 1982: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/pdf/const_e.pdf +
Freedom of religion is first asserted in the 1980 Constitution of the Republic of Cabo Verde. Articles 42.1, 44.1, 45.1, 47.2-3, and 48 grant religious freedoms and prohibit religious discrimination. This constitution guarantees freedom from religious discrimination, separation of church and state, freedom of religious instruction, guaranteed religious presence in hospitals, prisons, and armed forces, and the protection of religious places of worship.
References:
Constitute Project. Constitution of the Republic of Cabo Verde. 1980. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cape_Verde_1992 +